Risk welcomes the submission of technical articles on topics relevant to our readership. Core areas include market and credit risk measurement and management, the pricing and hedging of derivatives and/or structured securities, and the theoretical modelling and empirical observation of markets and portfolios. This list is not exhaustive.

The most important publication criteria are originality, exclusivity and relevance – we attempt to strike a balance between these. Given that Risk technical articles are shorter than those in dedicated academic journals, clarity of exposition is another yardstick for publication. Once received by the technical editor and his team, submissions are logged and checked against these criteria. Articles that fail to meet the criteria are rejected at this stage.

Articles are then sent without author details to one or more anonymous referees for peer review. Our referees are drawn from the research groups, risk management departments and trading desks of major financial institutions, in addition to academia. Many have already published articles in Risk. Authors should allow four to eight weeks for the refereeing process. Depending on the feedback from referees, the author may attempt to revise the manuscript. Based on this process, the technical editor makes a decision to reject or accept the submitted article. His decision is final.

Submissions should be sent, preferably by e-mail, to the technical team ([email protected]).

Microsoft word is the preferred format, although pdf is acceptable if submitted with LaTeX code or a word file of the plain text. It is helpful for graphs and figures to be submitted as separate Excel, postscript or EPS files.

The maximum recommended length for articles is 3,500 words, with some allowance for charts and/or formulas. We expect all articles to contain references to previous literature. We reserve the right to cut accepted articles to satisfy production considerations.

A quant at Citi has revived debate about the changing nature of the profession (www.risk.net/2417747). The scope is narrower, he claims; the job has been dumbed down, and today's quants are little more than programmers. Is he right?